It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cyberjedi
Hi ATS,
For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.
Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.
Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.
www.youtube.com...
'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.
So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.
So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.
originally posted by: stormcell
originally posted by: cyberjedi
Hi ATS,
For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.
Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.
Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.
www.youtube.com...
'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.
So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.
So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.
Woodpeckers could have started off by drilling bark for bugs and stuff. Maybe they picked out the bugs in rotten wood. Then those with a bit more tolerance for hard wood would have an advantage. Then that is taken forward to carving out nests.
originally posted by: trollz
Your entire argument is thrown out the window at the acknowledgement of other creatures existing without those characteristics. There are birds that can't do what the woodpecker does. There are creatures that can't fly. There are creatures without brains or hearts. There are single-celled organisms and bacterium...
So, if you're claiming evolution can't be real because the woodpecker can't exist without its unique characteristics, I'll say you're wrong. We just don't call the other birds woodpeckers.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: cyberjedi
This makes a lot more sense to me than anything you are talking about. There's a natural progression to complexity over millions and millions of years:
"Those are some of the things molecules do given 4 billion years of evolution."
Fish have 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 nostril holes, a backbone, and a poop hole might be a clue as to where we came from!
The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
Irreducable complexity is the *belief* that something started out as its end point to begin with. The Bacterioal flaggelum motor specifically is used to demonstrate why IC is bunk. It requires the 50 or so parts in order to operate...as Bact Flag..otherwise it wouldn't spin and float, etc..fine, but that function might have come later, previously its little tail could have served as feelers, etc.
Here is a good article on New Scientist that discusses this specifically: Flaggelum
a snippet:
The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
I would recommend its best not to keep trying to debunk evolution. Its a ongoing process of examination and evidence and only gets stronger and stronger through the years. Best to spend your time learning the system and progressing society instead demand we still live in the dark ages where "god did it" was the go-to answer for all things not understood.
And yes, God is the answer to all things understood and all things not understood. God is All that is. Everything is made of God. And so you could argue that we are God experiencing itself.
It requires the 50 or so parts in order to operate...as Bact Flag..otherwise it wouldn't spin and float, etc..fine, but that function might have come later, previously its little tail could have served as feelers, etc.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi
And yes, God is the answer to all things understood and all things not understood. God is All that is. Everything is made of God. And so you could argue that we are God experiencing itself.
Yet there's a mountain of evidence for evolution and a great big nothing for your particular god.
ETA: Sonething I've never understood from the religious. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn't your flavour of god create the first atoms and let everything take its course?
Irreducable complexity is the *belief* that something started out as its end point to begin with.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi
back to irreducible complexity
OK. It's nonesense because not every mutation is beneficial and adaptations originate from changes in function.
Want an example of changes in function?
I give to you, the lungfish!